linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: scmi: Add boost frequency support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Za-RtBrSxI-j4Jdx@bogus>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:15:16 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, cristian.marussi@....com,
	rafael@...nel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	lukasz.luba@....com, sboyd@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, nm@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: scmi: Add boost frequency support

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:38:27AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-01-24, 16:34, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > This series adds provision to mark dynamic opps as boost capable and adds
> > boost frequency support to the scmi cpufreq driver.
> > 
> > Depends on:
> > HW pressure v4: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/20240109164655.626085-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
> > scmi notification v2: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/20240117104116.2055349-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
> > 
> > Sibi Sankar (3):
> >   OPP: Extend dev_pm_opp_data with turbo support
> >   firmware: arm_scmi: Add support for marking certain frequencies as
> >     boost
> >   cpufreq: scmi: Enable boost support
> 
> Sudeep, please lemme know if you are okay with the changes. Will apply
> them.

I was planning to look at it once Lukasz/Dietmar confirm that this concept
doesn't change anything fundamental in the way EAS related changes work
today. I know I suggested the change as that seem to be right way to do
but I haven't analysed if this has any negative impact on the existing
features as this change will impact all the existing platform with OPPs
above sustained performance/frequency advertised from the SCMI platform
firmware.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep